According to the drop calculator, the only real issue I can see with the map is that, in a 2p or 3p game, a player has a 22.53% chance of dropping Plateau. The 3-terit small bonuses have a 9.72%, which is just below my personal kneejerk 10% threshold. I kinda like the idea of making Nimiipuu a 1, it kills a couple birds with one stone, plus it provides minimal protection for bordering bonuses (a 1 is a lot different than a 2 in terms of defense).

Incandenza wrote:I kinda like the idea of making Nimiipuu a 1, it kills a couple birds with one stone, plus it provides minimal protection for bordering bonuses (a 1 is a lot different than a 2 in terms of defense).

Tisha wrote:so making NIIMIIPUUUU a neutral one.. anything else?

this is an excellent suggestion. the single neutral prevents someone from starting with the bonus, but a player can bring it into play immediately without committing a heap of troops.

iancanton wrote:u can reduce the number of resultant random neutrals by making tunimiut and taino start neutral too, so that no-one starts with greenland or circum-caribbean. the total number of random-starting regions will then be 69, meaning that 1v1 games start with 23 regions each, 2v2 with 17 each and 3v3 with 11 each.

the 3-region bonuses do not need to start neutral on this large map. however, if nimiipuu starts neutral, then there will be at least 2 additional random neutrals floating around except in the rare 5-player and 7-player settings, so u might as well put them where they'll be doing something useful. if u make it so that tunimiut and taino are each neutral 1 instead of neutral 3, then u'll actually reduce the number of neutral troops on the board. although taino is more important than tunimiut, since circum-caribbean is a +2 bonus, the influence of both of these is secondary to that of nimiipuu, which is the one that needs to be fixed. i'd prefer all three to start as neutral but, if u choose to code only one fixed neutral region, then let it be nimiipuu.

I dont think that dropping the plateau is that big of a deal. ive dropped it 50% of the games I have played, and felt no real advantage to having it. However, keeping enough forces around it to keep it is a headache sometimes. I think making nimipuu a neutral 1, or 2, makes it an easier card spot for those going first, but making it a 3 gives border protection for other bonuses. I say leave it alone.

On a map that big, 1 army doesnt make a huge difference. Just roll one less '1' during the entire course of the game and call it even .

Yeah, that's really the main thing... and as always, it's not a deal-breaker, the map could certainly move out of beta as is. But removing the first-mover from both dubs and trips would be preferable, and if that can be achieved by tossing a neutral 1 (or several) onto easily-dropped bonuses, so much the better.

Just wanted to give a thumbs-up to this map. I'm playing it right now. It has some very interesting strategic qualities, and is easy to understand.

In contrast to what someone said earlier, the arctic bonus is quite useful. I started by taking the Northeast and Greenland. With only 2 territories needed to defend a 3-army bonus, it's not a bad place to expand from. From that, you need to add only 3 more points of defence to get the 6-army arctic bonus, and most of those are connected.

It feels like a very finished map already. As for making one territory start with 1 neutral army, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, one way or the other. But I'm not a statistician. If those who are say that it would make it more balanced, then go for it.

A potential objection to the idea of having Nimiipuu start neutral is that it leaves only 71 territories, which means that there will be either 2 or 3 neutral territories no matter how many players there are. And that also affects how many armies everyone starts out receiving - in most cases, it will be 1 less than if there were no neutrals.

Esn wrote:A potential objection to the idea of having Nimiipuu start neutral is that it leaves only 71 territories, which means that there will be either 2 or 3 neutral territories no matter how many players there are. And that also affects how many armies everyone starts out receiving - in most cases, it will be 1 less than if there were no neutrals.

I have to say I'm really impressed with the game play on this map. It feels like a cross between Iberia and South America. It does feel fairly balanced for the most part however, it did drop bonuses for 2of3 in this game. Game 6098902 Other than being able to drop on a small bonus, I think this map could rank top 10 in large team games.

Is it just me, or is this map particularly conducive to 3-way ties that last a long time? One party in the North (beginning with Montagnail in the north-east), one in the West (mountain ranges & coast), and one in the South. And the main fighting then happens either between South & West along the west coast, South & West through the plains, South & North through Tuscarora (fighting over Woodlands and Southeast), and North & West through the west coast.

I only have 2 games running, but one of them's 71 rounds long already (5825323). (and the same situation is developing in the other one)

The player in the West seems like he could be at a bit of a bigger disadvantage, since there are more points to defend and he's always easy to reach for both South and North.

Anyway, these are just some newbie strategy notes. Doubtless, more traits will become clear as I play longer on this map.